Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 (2026)

Gaming debts not evidenced by credit instrument not enforceable; resolution of certain claims or disputes between licensee and patron associated with promotional activities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Laws, 1990 Ex Sess, ch. 45, § 79; Laws, 2009, ch. 384, § 1; Laws, 2010, ch. 431, § 9, eff. 3/24/2010.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Duckworth, 990 So. 2d 758 (Miss. 2008).
Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Duckworth, 990 So. 2d 758 (Miss. 2008). · cites it 2× “2000) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-157). Therefore, we consider whether a particular dispute between a patron and a casino springs from "a gaming debt.”
Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindler, 772 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 2000). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-157. Before the enactment of the Mississippi Gaming Control Act, casino patrons like Shindler would have had no forum in which to air their grievances.”
Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp., 697 So. 2d 378 (Miss. 1997). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 (2) (1972) states that "a claim by a patron of a licensee for payment of a gambling debt not evidenced by a credit instrument may be resolved by the executive director [of the Mississippi Gaming Commission] in accordance with sections 75-76-159…”
Kelly v. Int'l Games Tech., 874 So. 2d 977 (Miss. 2004). “91 to which she is entitled is a judgment against IGT; whether she should be awarded attorneys' fees, court costs and interest; and if she is awarded interest, the appropriate rate and the time from which the interest should accumulate.”
Christian Shriver v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “The Hearing Examiner also found that IP Casino had complied with applicable Mississippi law in denying the Shrivers’ attempted redemption: The Mississippi Gaming Commission retains exclusive jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 (2), as…”
Scherer v. MGM Resorts Int'l (S.D. Miss. 2023). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 . Neither party disputes that Plaintiff’s claims address a gaming debt covered by the statute.”
Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Jimmy L. Duckworth (Miss. 2006). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 (2) (Rev. 2000) (emphasis added).”
Grand Casino Tunica v. Robert N. Shindler (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 . Before the enactment of the Mississippi Gaming Control Act, casino patrons like Shindler would have had no forum in which to air their grievances.”
Tina Louise Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp (Miss. 1995). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 (2) (1972) states that "a claim by a patron of a licensee for payment of a gambling debt not evidenced by a credit instrument may be resolved by the executive director [of the Mississippi Gaming Commission] in accordance with sections 75-76-159…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157(1) — 1 case
Scherer v. MGM Resorts Int'l (S.D. Miss. 2023). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157 . Neither party disputes that Plaintiff’s claims address a gaming debt covered by the statute.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-157(2) — 1 case
Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Duckworth, 990 So. 2d 758 (Miss. 2008). “2000) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-157). Therefore, we consider whether a particular dispute between a patron and a casino springs from "a gaming debt.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.